Gordon v. State
219 So. 3d 189
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gordon was charged with one count of strongarm robbery for taking cash from a victim at a gas station on Dec. 26, 2014; surveillance video and Gordon’s post-Miranda statement were admitted at trial.
- Video and victim testimony showed Gordon asked for $2, received money, then snatched additional cash and a brief tussle ensued during which the victim’s glasses were knocked off and she suffered a cut.
- A Good Samaritan intervened, Gordon dropped the money but then ran; a later struggle with the Good Samaritan occurred before Gordon fled and was later arrested.
- Defense theory: Gordon committed two lesser-included offenses (theft + assault or theft + battery) rather than robbery, so requested a compound-offense (afterthought) jury instruction and a verdict form permitting conviction on multiple lesser-included offenses.
- Trial court denied the compound-offense instruction and proposed verdict form, gave standard lesser-included instructions (permitting only one verdict), and the jury convicted Gordon of strongarm robbery; court sentenced him to three years.
- On appeal Gordon also challenged lack of a written competency order; the trial court had made an oral competency finding but did not enter a written order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing a compound-offense/afterthought instruction and a verdict form allowing conviction on more than one lesser-included offense (theft + assault or theft + battery) | Gordon: Entitled as a matter of law to compound-offense instruction and verdict form so jury could convict on two lesser offenses consistent with his defense theory | State: No factual basis; video and statements show a single continuous act—taking and use of force were contemporaneous—so jury should not be allowed to find multiple lesser convictions instead of robbery | Court: Affirmed. No instruction or multi-verdict form required because evidence conclusively showed contemporaneous, continuous acts; no evidence supported separate, sequential offenses. Court rejects per se rule in Stuckey and certifies conflict. |
| Whether trial court must enter a written order finding defendant competent to stand trial | Gordon: Trial court’s oral competency finding must be memorialized in writing under Rule 3.212(b) | State: Issue waived (argued) | Court: Remanded for entry of written order consistent with oral finding; error to omit written order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gian-Grasso v. State, 899 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (discusses compound offenses and jury verdicts convicting on multiple lesser-included crimes)
- Bledsoe v. State, 764 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (recognizes compound-offense concept)
- Foster v. State, 596 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (discussion of compound/offense merger principles)
- Stuckey v. State, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (held defendant entitled to have jury consider multiple lesser offenses where evidence supports that theory; court here distinguishes and certifies conflict)
- DeJesus v. State, 98 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (afterthought instruction applicable when evidence supports separate acts)
- Haygood v. State, 109 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2013) (reaffirming that lesserincluded instructions rest on proper legal theory, not jury pardon)
- Rodriguez v. State, 147 So. 3d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (instruction required when any evidence supports defendant’s theory of defense)